CHICAGO -- You're worried. We're worried. Who isn't worried about the sluggish economy?
America's farmers may not be too worried.
They're enjoying the fattest times in memory. The money pouring into Corn Belt bank accounts isn't just setting a record. The latest government figures show farm income blowing past the previous high of $84.7 billion in 2004 to top $100 billion this year. Land values have soared.
And there's no end in sight. Continued strong demand sets the stage for another bonanza next year and the year after that.
So from a financial standpoint, farmers have few worries. But success has led to other concerns.
ADVERTISEMENT
Across the rural heartland, farmers and their elected officials fret about keeping the money coming from a government that so far has failed to say, "Enough." Given all the talk about austerity, farmers should worry about cuts in the enormous federal subsidies that have done so much to enrich them.
Don't get us wrong: We're thrilled to see farmers prosper. America gets a boost when the farm belt rocks.
But the giveaways must stop. They're an unaffordable drain.
The problem goes beyond the indefensible direct payments -- $4.7 billion a year in government checks sent to farmers, no matter how much money the farmers make. The problem extends to biofuel subsidies that promote corn-brewed ethanol at a cost of billions, conservation programs that pay to idle environmentally sensitive land and crop-insurance benefits that farmers want expanded.
Farm state lawmakers know they hold a strong hand in any election year. Time and again, Congress has proven unwilling to pay the political price for imposing fiscal sanity on this clout-rich sector.
But the coming year might be different. Republican presidential candidates do not uniformly pander to the farm lobby. While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remains a supporter of ethanol, Texas Gov. Rick Perry not long ago led a spirited attack on government mandates for the corn-brewed fuel. Rep. Michele Bachmann has a history of denouncing farm programs.
It's not a full-blown revolution, but with the tea party pushing hard for spending cuts, the political debate over agriculture has become much less predictable. President Barack Obama is seeking $33 billion in farm spending cuts over the next decade as part of his latest deficit plan.
Like another prosperous industry that relies on government subsidies -- Big Oil -- agriculture can afford to shoulder steep cuts. As it is, a few dominant farmers soak up most of the government largesse: Since 1995, just 10 percent of the largest and wealthiest producers have taken home 74 percent of the subsidies.
ADVERTISEMENT
That trend toward more subsidies flowing into fewer pockets is poised to continue as agriculture consolidates, and as populuations continue to dwindle in farm counties across America.
The fight over this particular part of the bloated federal budget has nothing to do with the largely mythical image of small family farmers scratching out a living by the grace of God and Willie Nelson. The nation must say no to costly and unnecessary corporate welfare that benefits a few at the expense of everyone else.
-- Chicago Tribune
